CLAIMS AGAINST ARMY DEPARTMENT

Southland Times, Issue 24756, 29 May 1942, Page 5

CLAIMS AGAINST ARMY DEPARTMENT

COUNSEL’S ALLEGATION

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 28. “It will be unfortunate if the authorities are going to adopt this attitude, and if they do I hope the Legislature will see to it that the public are protected against this kind of thing,” said the Magistrate, Mr A. M. Goulding, when it was stated by counsel in Court that the Army Department was using the laws as a shelter against claims by the public for damage done by Army vehicles and leaving the public to sue the individual soldier concerned. Albert Comfort, an accountant, sought damages from Lieutenant G. D. Velyin, the claim arising from a motor accident involving a car driven by Velvin in the course of his military duties. Mr Shorland, for Velvin, said Velvin was four days’ late in giving notice of his intention to defend the case, but this could be fully explained on reasonable grounds. Mr Rollings, for Comfort, said the case raised ah issue of very great importance. Claims against the Crown were brought by petition of right under the Crown Suits Act 1908, but the Crown Suits Amendment Act 1910 contained provision which had the effect that no petition of right could be brought in respect of Acts committed by members of the Defence Forces. There could be little doubt that P ro ” vision was enacted primarily with other activities in view than driving motor vehicles, and for some years past it had been the practice for legal advisers of the Crown to waive privilege in claims arising out of the use of Army vehicles and allow such claims to be heard on their merits. Recently, however, that attitude had been changed and shelter was being taken under the 1910 amendment, thus leaving the injured party with a remedy against the driver personally by way of ordinary summons. Counsel said that such action must be commenced within three months of the occurrence and only after notice had been given. Counsel added that the number of claims affected was large and the situation was regarded as wholly unsatisfactory by motorists and those who indemnified them. Mr Rollings said the Army's attitude now was to leave Individual soldiers to defend actions. If judgement went against a soldier the Army might pay. The Magistrate: What disturbs me is whether or not Army vehicles are covered by insurance and whether they are covered by a comprehensvie policy. Mr Rollings said that when written to about the case Army Headquarters said the question of liability had been referred to the State Fire Office, which replied that it admitted no liability and was not the insurer of Velvin. In reserving decision on the question of granting leave to defend, the Magistrate said it seemed to him that it would be singularly unfortunate if the Army Department or the Crown proposed to take shelter behind the Crown Suits Amendment Act. That had not always been done in the past. An action against an individual officer or soldier would be a return to the days before compulsory third party insurance.